I did my schooling in India, college in US & doctorate in Japan. Had I made a novel discovery, who should be apportioned the majority credit? The schools which taught me the basics, the college which taught me engineering or the specialization which earned me the hypothetical achievement?
I think the credit assignment based on institution of incidence is the most practical way of recognition since they happen to have an outsized influence on the outcome in terms of labor, capital & collaboration. Economics of technology is known to have little room for moral discourses. I understand the point you make, but there are no better objective and granular ways to understand achievement & progress.
Take the story of Newton and the Apple, (I know its probably not accurate historically, but bare with me a moment). Are we concerned with if Newton was in London/Sicily/Barcelona/Paris when the proverbial apple fell? How about who owned the apple tree? No, the observation could have been made in any location. The variable which caused the "innovation" was the observer, not his location.
But then this situation begs the question on what basis research institutions & corporation will ask for continuing support. If all credit is apportioned to individual how is research funding to be justified? This answer will again lean on the individual's affiliation who has incidence within the institution where the discovery was made. We will be back to square one.
Remember my original comment is within the context of exceptionalism and pride drawn from nationalistic achievement recognition, I think you are conflating credit with funding which are separate issues. A corporation or country is perfectly legitimate in saying 'We have been researching this and would like to receiving funding so we can continue" but a a country would not be correct in saying that "because this occurred here, it can only occur here and thus we are responsible for the discovery and thus exceptional".
